Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by kierank):

 We have had no response so we should remove NDI within 24 hours.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by Cigaes):

 That is not enough. You distributed software without complying with the
 license. Furthermore, since you explicitly set ```--enable-nonfree```, it
 cannot be considered an honest mistake.

 Therefore, according to the clauses of the GPL, you lost all rights to
 distribute any FFmpeg-based and x264-based code. Furthermore, you lost the
 goodwill of the community.

 cehoyos just gave you an ultimatum: comply retroactively with the terms of
 the GPL, and you will win back the goodwill. If you do not, then we will
 acknowledge that you do not want our goodwill and stop providing its
 effects.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by across):

 On the day that this was reported to us, we removed ffmpeg from the NDI
 SDK.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 It was suggested that my last post here is missing a deadline.
 @across: Please explain how you plan to fulfill the obligations of the GPL
 until December 16th.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by Zeranoe):

 Replying to [comment:24 cehoyos]:
 > Replying to [ticket:7589 Zeranoe]:
 > > It looks like !NewTek is providing a non-free FFmpeg build with their
 Windows 3.7 NDI SDK:
 >
 > Please run `md5sum` on this installer.

 MD5:
 {{{ fb464e5cf8f97517f0477d3cf801e240 *NewTek NDI 3.7 SDK.exe }}}

 SHA1:
 {{{ 5844c790aaaf385ac3f895c5bd134911da0e901a *NewTek NDI 3.7 SDK.exe }}}

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [ticket:7589 Zeranoe]:
 > It looks like !NewTek is providing a non-free FFmpeg build with their
 Windows 3.7 NDI SDK:

 Please run `md5sum` on this installer.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by michael):

 ive been asked about my opinion about this issue ...

 I think it would be wise from newtek to release libndi under the GPL or a
 compatible license. The alternative wise thing for newtek would be to hire
 a lawyer from the FSF.

 Also legal threats for reverse engeneering are not wise. I know no details
 of this case but if the impression I got from what ive read is
 representative and if i was in charge at newtek i would search for a new
 employee to replace whoever sent that legal threat. I mean this was not in
 the interest of newtek at all.

 about removing or keeping the code, this is the decision of the community
 not mine

 just my 2 cents as i was asked.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by j-b):

 Replying to [comment:19 cehoyos]:
 > Replying to [comment:18 JEEB]:
 > > Replying to [comment:15 cehoyos]:
 > > > Replying to [comment:14 JEEB]:
 > > > > Of course, now, the fun little thing after you have published a
 binary like this, is that I think technically anyone who received this
 binary can request the full code under the GPL - including your NDI
 library. Of course IANAL, but ┐(´д｀)┌.
 > > > This is not true in (continental) Europe.
 > >
 > > I would really love it if you were more verbose about this.
 > I don't think it can be argued that !NewTek ever wanted to comply with
 the GPL when they decided to distribute a binary based on FFmpeg and x264
 source code. Therefore no contract ever came into effect between the
 FFmpeg developers and !NewTek and therefore you cannot demand any
 obligations that result from such a contract.

 Copyright does not need to be agreed on to be fully in force.

 The GPL is a software license, therefore a contract.

 By distributing the software, they agreed to the contract, that they
 breached.

 However, I doubt that this discussion is for this topic.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [comment:18 JEEB]:
 > Replying to [comment:15 cehoyos]:
 > > Replying to [comment:14 JEEB]:
 > > > Of course, now, the fun little thing after you have published a
 binary like this, is that I think technically anyone who received this
 binary can request the full code under the GPL - including your NDI
 library. Of course IANAL, but ┐(´д｀)┌.
 > > This is not true in (continental) Europe.
 >
 > I would really love it if you were more verbose about this.
 I don't think it can be argued that !NewTek ever wanted to comply with the
 GPL when they decided to distribute a binary based on FFmpeg and x264
 source code. Therefore no contract ever came into effect between the
 FFmpeg developers and !NewTek and therefore you cannot demand any
 obligations that result from such a contract.
 ''Der Dieb schuldet nicht.''

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by JEEB):

 Replying to [comment:15 cehoyos]:
 > Replying to [comment:14 JEEB]:
 > > Of course, now, the fun little thing after you have published a binary
 like this, is that I think technically anyone who received this binary can
 request the full code under the GPL - including your NDI library. Of
 course IANAL, but ┐(´д｀)┌.
 > This is not true in (continental) Europe.

 I would really love it if you were more verbose about this. If the binary
 package contained the NDI library as well as the FFmpeg binary that was
 specifically set to be GPL, I would think these two would constitute a set
 of derivative work.

 Also if the build was clearly meant to work with a dynamically loaded
 library, but was not explicitly linked against it (furthered by the fact
 that they'd be distributed together), I'd think the generally idea of a
 "derivative work" would apply in this case as well.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by j-b):

 Replying to [comment:5 kierank]:
 > I find it hilarious Andrew that you send legal threats to Open Source
 developers for independently implementing NDI yet you want to suddenly
 make use of FFmpeg when it's useful for you. You are a complete hypocrite.

 I totally corroborate kierank point here. I was witness of that.

 You send legal threats and threat about suing open source developers, and
 then you violate Open Source licenses?

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by j-b):

 Of course, this is not an "honest mistake", the build is configured with
 "--enable-libndi_newtek --enable-nonfree", so this is done on purpose. The
 message explains that clearly.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [comment:14 JEEB]:
 > Of course, now, the fun little thing after you have published a binary
 like this, is that I think technically anyone who received this binary can
 request the full code under the GPL - including your NDI library. Of
 course IANAL, but ┐(´д｀)┌.
 This is not true in (continental) Europe.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by JEEB):

 I think more than just the "distributing a binary with enable-nonfree
 configured" part, people are seeing this as an example of where a company
 takes advantage of open source components such as libx264 or FFmpeg, while
 not keeping it all kosher. It may not have been your intent, but that's
 how it comes out when a company producing a blob that is only usable with
 enable-nonfree decides to publish a binary that contains useful utilities
 covered by libraries linked into it - which are not supposed to be
 license-compatible with each other.

 To put it more specifically, your SDK is not compatible with GPL, yet
 clearly someone felt like having fabulous H.264 encoding through libx264
 was something that would "sell" (not necessarily regarding money, that is)
 your solution even better. Otherwise enable-gpl and enable-libx264 would
 have not been set. Or the clearly manually added x264-related define. And
 I don't disagree. Having x264 in a binary with your input reading makes it
 much more feasible for various usage.

 Now - unfortunately - your own license and x264 do not match up with this.
 Your license and GPL are not compatible with each other. You are not an OS
 library/feature, and you're not something that at least apparently would
 also be source distributable under the GPL (since GPL is viral, after
 all).

 Of course, now, the fun little thing after you have published a binary
 like this, is that I think technically anyone who received this binary can
 request the full code under the GPL - including your NDI library. Of
 course IANAL, but ┐(´д｀)┌.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by across):

 Replying to [comment:12 Gyan]:
 > Replying to [comment:10 across]:
 > > I honestly did not see the post on the forums...
 > There is a reply by you immediately following the post Carl quoted.

 This conversation occurred before we ever added a pre-built FFMPEG to our
 SDK distribution and I believed that I believe that I was pointing out
 that we made our header files distributable and our library easy to use
 via dynamic loading, allowing you to build projects without even needing
 our libraries.

 If we incorrectly included pre-built versions (which was what the thread
 quoted was asking for) then I apologize again and we will remove these
 immediately. We absolutely respect the work of FFMPEG and it's license.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by Gyan):

 Replying to [comment:10 across]:
 > I honestly did not see the post on the forums...

 There is a reply by you immediately following the post Carl quoted.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by kierank):

 Replying to [comment:10 across]:
 > I know that because we are a company that there is going to be an
 inclination to dis-believe that we just where trying to help here and I do
 not see a lot to gain in trying getting into an argument about that. We
 make no money off NDI and we give it away to free (even to our
 competitors).

 So helpful that you sue people who try and independently implement NDI and
 find security holes in it.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by across):

 I honestly did not see the post on the forums, the official way to report
 bugs and problems with the SDK is n...@newtek.com and the forums are
 largely for the community although some of our employees tend to post
 there and from time to time I respond on issues brought to my attention. I
 am clearly aware of this issue now and will make sure it is taken care of.

 I know that because we are a company that there is going to be an
 inclination to dis-believe that we just where trying to help here and I do
 not see a lot to gain in trying getting into an argument about that. We
 make no money off NDI and we give it away to free (even to our
 competitors).

 If we have offended anyone then I sincerely apologize and please accept
 that it was not our intent. We will remove FFMPEG entirely from our SDK
 and get it patched online today. We will continue to document and support
 anyone using NDI within FFMPEG as best we possible can and strongly
 believe and support the FFMPEG project.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [comment:6 cehoyos]:
 > Replying to [comment:2 across]:
 > > Thanks a lot for this bug report and I sincerely apologize if we have
 done anything at all that was not correct, that certainly was not the goal
 at all.
 >
 > This is hard to believe but I accept it.

 Sorry, I have to take this back:
 https://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?155773-Windows-amp-Zeranoe-
 FFmpeg-Builds-with-NewTek-NDI-Built-In
 You were informed here by user jules43 that ''FFmpeg compiled with
 [libndi] will never be legally redistributable'', so above is not
 believable at all.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by kierank):

 Replying to [comment:7 cehoyos]:
 > Replying to [comment:5 kierank]:
 > > I find it hilarious Andrew that you send legal threats to Open Source
 developers for independently implementing NDI yet you want to suddenly
 make use of FFmpeg when it's useful for you. You are a complete hypocrite.
 > Did you inform us about this?

 The threat was not to me and was unrelated to FFmpeg.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [comment:5 kierank]:
 > I find it hilarious Andrew that you send legal threats to Open Source
 developers for independently implementing NDI yet you want to suddenly
 make use of FFmpeg when it's useful for you. You are a complete hypocrite.
 Did you inform us about this?

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 Replying to [comment:2 across]:
 > Thanks a lot for this bug report and I sincerely apologize if we have
 done anything at all that was not correct, that certainly was not the goal
 at all.

 This is hard to believe but I accept it.

 > We included ffmpeg pre-compiled in our SDK purely as a convenience for
 users (we have had hundreds of requests for this) and we took care to
 avoid misrepresenting anything.

 I don't think this is useful as an answer to us informing you that you are
 violating our copyright.
 ''Sorry for distributing [put your favorite blockbuster here], we had
 hundreds of requests!

 > Ultimately we just have a very large number of people who want to use
 NDI with ffmpeg and do not want the hassle of working out how to compile
 it.

 > Our preferred goal would always be to find a way for others to do this

 I don't think this is true, would you like to elaborate on what you write
 here?

 > and we changed out header files to an MIT license and our run-time
 libraries are an entirely separate download that has entirely separate
 functionality.

 How is this related?

 > Regardless, if someone wants to contact us we're more than happy to do
 whatever the ffmpeg community wants here.

 Honestly? No, I prefer to spend time on fixing bugs, not on contacting
 people who violate my copyright.

 > Our ultimate goal is to make things easy for everyone and help anyone
 who wants to use NDI have an easy way to do so. Feel free to each out to
 me if anyone wants to talk about the best way to handle this and we are
 open to helping in any way we can (across AT newtek DOT com.)

 Did you already stop violating our copyright by distributing non-free
 binaries based on FFmpeg source code?

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by across):

 Replying to [comment:3 cehoyos]:
 > What steps have you taken so far?

 Well, I only learn of this issue about 10 minutes ago, so I am trying to
 get to the bottom of the concern and how everyone would like to see us
 resolve it. Certainly if anyone thinks we are trying to steal anything
 they have misunderstood our intent.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by kierank):

 I find it hilarious Andrew that you send legal threats to Open Source
 developers for independently implementing NDI yet you want to suddenly
 make use of FFmpeg when it's useful for you. You are a complete hypocrite.

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-

Comment (by cehoyos):

 What steps have you taken so far?

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-
Changes (by across):

 * cc: across@… (added)


Comment:

 Thanks a lot for this bug report and I sincerely apologize if we have done
 anything at all that was not correct, that certainly was not the goal at
 all. We included ffmpeg pre-compiled in our SDK purely as a convenience
 for users (we have had hundreds of requests for this) and we took care to
 avoid misrepresenting anything.

 Ultimately we just have a very large number of people who want to use NDI
 with ffmpeg and do not want the hassle of working out how to compile it.
 Our preferred goal would always be to find a way for others to do this and
 we changed out header files to an MIT license and our run-time libraries
 are an entirely separate download that has entirely separate
 functionality.

 Regardless, if someone wants to contact us we're more than happy to do
 whatever the ffmpeg community wants here. Our ultimate goal is to make
 things easy for everyone and help anyone who wants to use NDI have an easy
 way to do so. Feel free to each out to me if anyone wants to talk about
 the best way to handle this and we are open to helping in any way we can
 (across AT newtek DOT com.)

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac

Re: [FFmpeg-trac] #7589(undetermined:new): NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build

[FFmpeg]

#7589: NewTek distributing non-free FFmpeg build
-+-
 Reporter:  Zeranoe  |Owner:
 Type:  license  |   Status:  new
  violation  |Component:
 Priority:  important|  undetermined
  Version:  unspecified  |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  NewTek   |   Blocked By:
 Blocking:   |  Reproduced by developer:  0
Analyzed by developer:  0|
-+-
Changes (by cehoyos):

 * keywords:  NewTek NDI => NewTek
 * priority:  normal => important


Comment:

 Patch sent, thank you for the report!

--
Ticket URL: 
FFmpeg 
FFmpeg issue tracker
___
FFmpeg-trac mailing list
FFmpeg-trac@avcodec.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-trac